 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.189.135.83
In Reply to: RE: The always actuel question: What sequel was EVER better than the first part? posted by patrickU on March 08, 2008 at 13:28:54
Hold your fire! Just kiddin'!
Follow Ups:
I never liked 2001, and when I resaw it shortly I knew even more why I did not.
I also saw 2012 ( Roy Schneider, was it not?) one hundred years ago, at least it did not have that intellectual pretension the first had....
Wow, patrickU! That is certainly an unconventional opinion! But hey, didn't T.S. Eliot call HAMLET a "stupid play"? He was no intellectual slouch.
But 2001, at least in my mind, is one of the finest films ever made. There is no other film that so eloquently explores the mystery of existence, the nature of life and consciousness, and the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.
A machine, HAL, a paranoic psychopath, that blurs the distinction between the living and the inanimate and calls into question the very nature of consciuosness?
The whole history of mankind's ascent summed up in a spinning bone that "turns into" a space ship, equating all of our technological advancement as nothing more than logical extension of this ancient insight, and insinuating at the same time, that nothing signficant in the whole history of humanity has happened since?
A dizzying procession of spinning and gyrating sets that remind us that there really is no up, no down, and no reliable points of reference?
A journey across the chasm of space and time that brings us back to where we came from, that shows us that there is neither a here or a there, and that the great embarkation, birth, and the great arrival, death, are one in the same.
There is not a single frame, a single word of dialogue, a note of music [think of spinning Viennese waltzers to the "Blue Danube" and the spinning space station] in this film that is not deeply imagined and thematically consistent with the whole.
But it was not only an artistic landmark, but a technical and production landmark as well, raising film-making to heroic new heights that, I would argue, have yet to be eclipsed.
What other films have been so ambitious? What films in the history of cinema have had such an impact? "Birth of a Nation," "Potemkin," "Citizen Kane"? Only the greatest of the great.
The words you lay down to that electronical paper has almost convince me that the film is good...
And yet words are only words and that won´t be enough.
We have discussed this film here and I more that once, so i do not feel the energy to start THAT again, BUT here a link with most I feel and felt back then.
Among my friends I was the only one not to like it. And it was not because I was 16....
I admire Wil...
The " Entrance of the film aka monoliths " is one of the most beautiful in cinema ever.
PS: No one should left out " Napoleon "...
patrickU, I totally understand your relecutance to revisit this much discussed topic.
I remember, even though I was a mere youth when the picture was released, the great controversy over it. I remember seeing it and being baffled, yet mesmerized. It is a forbidding film to this day, and its rather radical cinematic approach still puts people off. It has a way of asking the audience to look for meaning in places that most films don't, to turn cinemea itself into a form of experience, rather than a means of story-telling.
I thank you for the link, and I respect your point of view here. The reference to Eliot was meant in earnest.
Well I try to evaluate also a film withing the puzzle of an artist work, And Kubrick was one per excellence, remember a few years ago visiting the Film Museum in Frankfurt with all that stuff his German wife was willing to lend.
All his films are in a way deranging and asking, thirsting for reflexion.
But in his work there is something " unclean " to my taste, something ugly, the most kind of his film and my favourit is also the one he always made perfect.
Barry Lyndon.
Lolita was also an excellent film to my taste.
I just resaw Dr. Strangelove and even If I could without problem seat through all the film, I could see how that one was made " sur mesure " on its own time, a great mistake for sure.
In one word too intellectual with a rigid goal to follow, that do not make always good films.
Like his last one.
A disaster.
I never thought that it was not! T.S reflexion..I mean. But how do you come to think that way?
PS: A pleasure to discuss with you...
Hmmm, not sure exactly what you are asking me to respond to.
But I concur that there is something people might term "unclean" in his films, which others have characterized as detachment, cold and unfeeling objectivity, even cynicism. Isn't is funny how often people seem small and venal in his films? Where are his heroes? The Captain in Paths of Glory? Dave in 2001? Joker in Jacket? There is a certain misanthropic strain in his films, I would agree. And, often, the hero is make a mockery, as is Lady Lyndon's son, or Commander Kong.
As you may have guessed, I am a big Kubrick fan. And there are many people who do not hold his films in the highest esteem. But i find them all to be deeply engrossing, intellectually challenging, and exaquisitely made.
I can remember being unimpressed with a few of them upon first viewing: Jacket and Lyndon in particular. But today, I revere them.
I am still "stewing" Eyes Wide Shut, and though there are scenes that seem flawed, and the plot seems contrived at times, my appreciation for it, too, is growing. I still can't get over Kubrick's decision to replace Harvey Keitel with Sidney Pollack. I am nagged constantly by how unconvincing Pollack is in so many of his scenes, and much better Keitel would have been.
Did I ask something?
No I did not, just like running water one thought and or the other...
I thin Kubrick was an angry man, defying any kind of authority, save is oneself.
But does it matter?
His work does.
Some is justt a bit revolting for the sake of being so.
Taken at any degree, so
EWS is flawed and if you are by it the biggest is Tom Cruise.
For his ex wife she try so hard that you get the strain as a viewer.
Anyway he is one of the very best, and what I feel is a certain kind of deception with passing time looking at his works.
That may be MY problem...
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]